LJ Comment Spam

For several months, I've received occasional anonymous comments that I assumed were spam. The comments are always in response my political posts, and are always in this form:

all lowercase sentence expressing shock at the latest developments ("i can't believe this is happening!"
HEADLINE
link to an article on Faux News

I finally got around to setting my LJ to screen anonymous comments and record the IP of the poster. I accidentally unthinkingly deleted one last week, but this morning I got another. It's from 206.15.101.139. Network Solutions Whois tells me this:

206.15.101.139
Record Type: IP Address

OrgName: News Corporation
OrgID: NEWSC
Address: 1211 Avenue of the Americas
Address: 7th Floor
City: New York
StateProv: NY
PostalCode: 10036
Country: US

Morons. They aren't even smart enough to spam from a disguised server.

Unfortunately, LiveJournal doesn't allow you to ban comments by IP. So what recourse do I have now?

Another quotable

Yesterday, agrumer and I spent some time chatting with tnh and pnh at the Tor offices (mostly in lieu of actually working on NYRSF, but there will be time next week to catch up on the work list). Patrick mentioned that Kevin Drum had just quoted Teresa's "most quotable line of all time":

I deeply resent the way this administration makes me feel like a nutbar conspiracy theorist.

I was doubly amused, then, to run across this summation in a post on Mark Kleiman's The Reality-Based Community group blog . In a discussion of how badly overblown the plot to blow up ten airplanes was, and how the Cheney maladministration seems to have once again burned intelligence sources and pressured the Brits to rush the arrests, probably ruining the chances of actually getting convictions in favor of a short-term advantage in driving Ned Lamont out of the news cycle, James Wimberley says this:

There are basically two theories of history: conspiracy and cock-up. The Bush administration combines them so well that in any given case, it's hard to decide.

So, officially

Yes, I realize the Hamdan decision is last month's news, but I hadn't realized this implication of it expressed by David Cole in his article Why the Court Said No, in the 10 August 2006 issue of The New York Review of Books:

In fact, the Court's decision further suggests that President Bush has alreadycommitted a war crime, simply by establishing the military tribunals and subjecting detainees to them. As noted above, the Court found that the tribunals violate Common Article 3 [of the Geneva Conventions], and under the War Crimes Act, any violation of Common Article 3 is a war crime. Military defense lawyers responded to the Hamdan decision by requesting a stay of all tribunal proceedings, on the ground that their own continuing participation in those proceedings might constitute a war crime. But according to the logic of the Supreme Court, the President has already committed a war crime. He won't be prosecuted, of course, and probably should not be, since his interpretation of the Conventions was at least arguable. But now that his interpretation has been conclusively rejected, if he or Congress seeks to go forward with tribunals or interrogation rules that fail Article 3's test, they, too, would be war criminals.

So, it is now simple truth to say what I've believed all along: our nation is run by war criminals.